In reply to Geoff Russell.
It is quite revealing that he thinks that the question of nuclear accidents is the province of nuclear engineers only. That's the first time I have seen this view spelt out so baldly. It seems that nuclear advocates really believe that radiologists, epidemiologists, ecologists, marine biologists, medical radiation experts - really should not be listened to, have no real expertise on the question of nuclear radiation.
Yet surprisingly, he does pick out Dr David Brenner as an expert.

But what Brenner actually did say at this symposium was that in the case of low dose radiation, the cancer risk for an individual is small,but the risk for the population at large is significant.
Russell also seems to be under the curious impression that if there are so many deaths from cancer anyway, just adding a few more doesn't matter.

The population risk IS significant. Of any 30 young people developing cancer in 20 years' time in Fukushima, just one of those cases would be caused by the low dose radiation experienced as a child. For every parent - they could wonder "Was my child that one?"
David Brenner did not necessarily disagree with the other speakers, Brenner gave a very welcome explanation of the difficulties facing epidemiologists.
Like David Lochbaum, Brenner said he was in favour of nuclear power. It's just that both raised very valid questions about the measures needed to ensure safety - (very expensive measures that might be unaffordable)

Noel, did you even read the NYT article quoting Brenner?

Of the 150,000 evacuees, several hundred have already needlessly died prematurely. They didn't need to. All 150,000 could have been busily rebuilding their lives after the tsunami. During their lifetime about 60,000 will get cancer from the BIG cancer causes. The evacuation has killed hundreds to prevent what? 1 cancer? 5 cancers? The evacuation would have to prevent hundreds of cancers just to break even. But Brenner and other experts have estimated (not just claimed) that such a large number is simply not credible given the low level of radiation doses.

Those evacuees were killed for nothing. The evacuation was a tragedy for no good reason. Have you no compassion for these people?

But even worse, far, far worse than anti-nuclear fear mongering killing these people is the very real possibility of the starvation and deaths of millions or tens of millions because of climate change.

We could have all been where the French are twenty years ago if not for the anti-nuclear movement stopping the nuclear roll out and allowing the climate to deteriorate.

The anti-nuclear movement has cost the climate twenty years and counting.

Again in reply to Geoff Russell
The evacuation after the Fukushima nuclear accident WAS necessary, just as the evacuation after the Chernobyl accident was necessary. So far, the discussion in these comments as been all about the risks of cancer, following the immediate disaster. Here we are talking about external emitters of radiation - i.e. the rays that go straight through the body, can strike the nuclei of cells and cause a change leading to later cancer.
But the evacuation also has to do with the internal emitters, such as cesium 137, and iodine 131. These, deposited in water, soil, and blowing around in air, can enter the drinking water, and food chain, and then enter the body, There they can sit, for years, decades, continually emitting radiation.
That is why the Chernobyl area is still uninhabitable, That is why people still can't eat wild boars in parts of Europe, as these animals are still ingesting the internal emitters.
And anyway, the Fukushima reactors are far from stable - it's all a bit of a tightrope operation in trying to stabilise them, and their still dangerous radioactive trash cooling ponds. Another explosion could happen.

Noel, repeating something EVEN IN UPPER CASE, doesn't make it true.

Have a look here: http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/05/02/would-sir-like-a-caesium-salad-with-his-steak/

Can you see the pictures of dairy protein shredding the DNA of cells? And the Cesium 137, the dredded internal emitter? Can you spot the difference? The way to tell if something is dangerous isn't to judge how scary its description is. You need to check the numbers. The body count. Cs-137 has contaminated a huge area of Turkey, for example, as Helen Caldicott says. Avoid Turkish food she says. INTERNAL EMITTERS! But, 25 years later the Turkish cancer rates are half those in Australia. Why? Because bodies can and do have internal emitters for decades without any adverse consequences. Can one cs-137 atom cause cancer? Theoretically, yes. Theoretically, just one mouthful of milk can damage your DNA and cause cancer. One potassium-40 atom from almost any food on the planet. One breath of diesel fumes from a passing bus, one breath of wood dust, one ray of sunshine. Scariness has little to do with actual danger (otherwise we'd ban horror films).

I repeat, the evacuation would have needed to prevent hundreds of deaths just to break even. It didn't. It won't. It was just a deadly horrible screw up resulting from the inevitable outcome of making judgements based on fear instead of quantitative assessment of actual risks.

Can vaccinations have deadly side effects? YES. But the deadly consequences of not vaccinating are far, far worse, so we call those who oppose vaccinations irrational and very, very dangerous. So it is with the anti-nuclear movement. Irrational and, as we can see from the outcome at Fukushima, very, very dangerous.

Noel,

Considering that 30 yrs on that at Chernobyl that radiation levels have decreased by about 99% and over 90% of the areas that were evacuated now have radiation levels so low that they are considered safe.

Iodine has a very short half life and makes up the majority of the radiation at Fukushima

Noel, one last point. Which is more dangerous? Internal emitters and the Fukushima evacuation zone or Australia? The Japanese melanoma rate is about 12 per 100,000 per annum and the Australian rate is about 37 per 100,000 per annum. So over 40 years, 100,000 people in Australia will get about 1000 extra melanoma skin cancers. Based on radiation estimates in the evacuation zone, it's far less of a cancer risk.

Sunshine is far more dangerous than the published levels of cs-137 contamination.